Mountain West Expansion: This Should Happen Now

With the Pac-10 doing so poorly in bowl games this year (2-5) and the Mountain West doing fabulously well (4-0 thus far with Boise State and TCU facing off tonight) why would any team defect from the MWC to come to the Pac-10 like we’ve been discussing for awhile now? The obvious answer is that they’d do so because of the automatic BSC bid (and the millions that come from it) that the Pac-10 offers, but if the Mountain West got an automatic bid, would any team defect then? My guess? No. No way in hell, actually because why would they? After the 2013 season, the MWC will be eligible to join the BCS Automatic Qualifying conferences. And given their catbirdish seat, wouldn’t (or rather shouldn’t) other good schools in weaker conferences be angling to join the MWC? I’m thinking of the following:

(keep in mind that the Idaho Statesman has reported that dumping the weaker programs from the MWC is a “non-starter“)

Boise State (from the WAC):
The most obvious choice and a school that has been discussed a great deal by those affiliated with Boise State and with the MWC. If the MWC expands at all, they are the no brainiest of no brainer picks because of their success, proximity, and brand name. I would bet that most people who follow college football who are not from the west assumed that Boise State was in the MWC already.

Houston (from Conference USA):
A team that is on its way up; its last seven seasons: 10-4, 8-5, 8-5, 10-4, 6-6, 3-8, 7-6 (with wins over the following programs during that stretch: Oklahoma State (twice), Texas Tech, and Mississippi State (three times)). They have a newish coach (Kevin Sumlin) who may be tapped for the Texas Tech job… and if so, then I’ll have to temper my enthusiasm for Houston because I don’t know where they go from here without him. If he stays, Houston is a legit program that will make a strong MWC that much stronger (and C-USA is nowhere near the MWC’s class, especially at the top). Geographically, they make some sense as well given their proximity to TCU, but it’s a bit of a hike for the rest of the schools so the next two teams might be better fits from that perspective.

Fresno State (from the WAC):
This is a team that frankly deserves a chance. They’ve been almost there so many times; just on the precipice of beating good programs but failing to do so with any consistency. Since 2000 their records: 8-5, 7-6, 9-4, 4-8, 8-5, 9-3, 9-5, 9-5, 11-3, 7-5 (pretty damn good!). They’ve beaten the following bigger programs (out of conference) during that stretch: Illinois, UCLA (twice), Rutgers, Kansas State (twice), Georgia Tech (twice), Washington, Virginia, Oregon State (twice), Colorado, Wisconsin, and Cal. They’ve earned the right to get out of a bad conference and the MWC makes so much sense for them (plus they have a built-in rival with San Diego State already… perfect, really).

Nevada (from the WAC):
Nate Burleson’s ala mater deserves consideration as well. Notwithstanding their perfect built-in big brother/little brother rivalry with UNLV, they make a lot of sense from a football perspective. They’ve been very competitive lately (going to five bowl games in a row) and also have the distinction of having the weirdest-looking scoring discrepancy of all time perhaps. Has any team ever been shut out in one game by a “good” team (Notre Dame) and then score 70 on a separate “good” team (Idaho) in the same season? If it has happened, it couldn’t have happened too many times, it’s just too weird. They’re a team that is figuring things out, but who would be instantly competitive in the MWC. They ought to be considered if the conference is looking to expand.

Colorado (from the Big 12):
No chance that they would defect if the MWC does not get Automatic Qualifying status, but if it does, then this program might be wise to jump ship from the Big 12. They’ve been awful lately and while they should turn things around, do you really see it happening anytime soon? Alums of Colorado, how confident are you in Dan Hawkins? Better question: Why are you confident in Dan Hawkins? Geographically, they match up perfectly with the MWC; they seem like they should be playing schools like Utah and BYU rather than Texas and Oklahoma… plus, they play Colorado State every year anyway (and lose… just kidding… kind of) and Air Force is in Colorado… it just makes too much sense. I’d pick them over Nevada or Houston as better fits for the conference.

South
7. TCU
8. Fresno State
9. UNLV
10. San Diego State
11. Air Force
12. New Mexico

**If Houston is chosen, then they’d switch places with Air Force.

In my land of make-believe, I might like the North/South arrangement better than the West/East arrangement.

Of course, none of this may really matter (as much) if the BCS bowl system is scrapped and a playoff is implemented. I’d just like to see more competition and a better balance of power. If this new MWC is implemented, the conference will earn equal amounts of money that the other conference stand to make (outside of TV deals of course, see the SEC and its Fort Knox-like vault of cash), which means that they can update their facilities, spend more on recruiting, and get more exposure. The more competition, the better, at least for college football fans–tell me that this new MCW wouldn’t be as good or better than the Pac-10, Big Ten, ACC, Big East, Big 12, and the SEC. The top teams (TCU, Boise State, Utah, BYU, and Houston) are all fantastic programs. The middle (Wyoming, Fresno State, Air Force, Nevada) are on the come and would only get better under this arrangement. The “bad” teams (UNLV, San Diego State, New Mexico are bad, but are not terrible historically, e.g New Mexico went to five bowl games in the last eight years). I love this new conference. I can also envision this actually happening before the Pac-10 expands because they are in a more desperate situation because the Pac-10 has no sense of urgency (they are already an Automatic Qualifying BCS conference) and tends to move at a more glacial pace than other conferences. They also lack vision, although with a new commissioner things may change. I remain skeptical; however, until I see some actual changes (forcing FSN to provide better quality coverage would be a start).